4 ms·
> Fame and wealth are zero-sum. For some to be wealthy, powerful and famous, others must be poor, obedient and disregarded. Is this accurate? My understanding
by hunterloftis 7y ago
> Fame and wealth are zero-sum. For some to be wealthy, powerful and famous, others must be poor, obedient and disregarded.
Is this accurate? My understanding of wealth might be simplistic or reductive, but I have equated it to two neighbor craftsmen producing and trading goods. Each benefits from the other’s specialty and increases overall wealth, which is not zero-sum.
I can agree with the statement regarding fame, since fame is more directly correlated with time, which is strictly zero-sum.
- woadwarrior01 7y agoOne could argue that fame too is not a zero-sum game. With increasing populations, wouldn’t it be easier to have a million fans today than say during Shakespeare’s times? This could be one possible explanation for the rise of the influencers on YouTube, Instagram and the ilk.
- mcguire 7y agoConsider the extremes: if everyone only has $1, they are all objectively "poor", but without a comparison, they do not feel any difference. If they all have a great deal of resources, again, they have no grounds to compare. On the other hand, if one has great resources and the others little, then they have a noticable in wealth and power.
- fao_ 7y ago> Is this accurate? My understanding of wealth might be simplistic or reductive, but I have equated it to two neighbor craftsmen producing and trading goods. Each benefits from the other’s specialty and increases overall wealth, which is not zero-sum. It's accurate for the society we live in, but not for all possible societies.